In re Fantanajia Natalie Y.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Fantanajia Natalie Y.

41 A.D.3d 219, 836 N.Y.S.2d 412

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 14, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.3d 219 (In re Fantanajia Natalie Y.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Fantanajia Natalie Y., 41 A.D.3d 219, 836 N.Y.S.2d 412 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Clark Y. Richardson, J.), entered on or about August 14, 2006, which denied appellant’s motion to vacate the fact-finding order entered February 19, 2006, upon his default, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear at the fact-finding hearing (Matter of Kristen Simone V., 30 AD3d 174 [2006]; Matter of Jones, 128 AD2d 403 [1987]). Incarcerated at the time of the hearing, appellant was repeatedly offered the opportunity to be produced for the hearing, yet admittedly refused to be produced, changing his mind with respect to his participation in the proceedings only after the hearing’s completion.

We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Buckley, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Clark Y. Richardson, J.), entered on or about August 14, 2006, which denied appellant’s motion to vacate the fact-finding order entered February 19, 2006, upon his default, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear at the fact-finding hearing (Matter of Kristen Simone V., 30 AD3d 174 [2006]; Matter of Jones, 128 AD2d 403 [1987]). Incarcerated at the time of the hearing, appellant was repeatedly offered the opportunity to be produced for the hearing, yet admittedly refused to be produced, changing his mind with respect to his participation in the proceedings only after the hearing’s completion.

We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Buckley, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 219, 836 N.Y.S.2d 412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-fantanajia-natalie-y-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack